Comments on: Monday Morning Update 8/17/09

By: That's right, honesty is best

That's right, honesty is best — Wed, 19 Aug 2009 12:45:38 +0000

Re: “Keep it Honest”

Honesty is best. If only vendors were honest…

What about information that might save patient’s lives?

Are contractual clauses that forbid hospitals to share EHR defects, some that may put patients at risk, ethical? Clinical IT is unlike other IT, in that there is a special class of stakeholders involved with special rights: patients.

Those who detest whistleblowers usually have a good reason, regarding when they beat their wife … (i.e., yesterday, or today?)

By: Keep it honest

Keep it honest — Wed, 19 Aug 2009 01:26:12 +0000

Mr HISTalk – disclosing vendor customer confidential stuff or encouraging those with access to it to disclose it anonymously just isn’t right.

It’s no better than asking vendors who have access to customer data to inappropriately disclose that. Their mistake rate, how many times their docs prescribe something that almost kills a patient. How many med doses are missed. Their negotiated fee schedules, their discount schedules, etc.

I would hope, and so far I do think, that you are the kind of person who always does the right thing. This just isn’t the right thing to do.

By: Scot Silverstein, MD

Scot Silverstein, MD — Tue, 18 Aug 2009 22:56:17 +0000

Re: “Ross Koppel pointed out that hospitals probably can’t sign software vendor contracts containing non-disclosure language without running afoul of the Joint Commission’s accreditation requirements, which require hospitals and providers to share information about known patient safety risks.”

Ross was in fact citing my JAMA letter to the editor, published Julhy 21, 2009 ( http://jama.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/extract/302/4/382 ). If you are a JAMA subscriber, also read his and David Kreda’s reply to my observation.

By: S Silverstein

S Silverstein — Tue, 18 Aug 2009 15:10:39 +0000

Re: CCHIT, HIMSS and hegemony over the ‘certification’ process:

It’s clear the American psyche does not like a bully.

By: Bignurse

Bignurse — Tue, 18 Aug 2009 12:30:44 +0000

Certifying an EMR for Meaningful Use? That doesn’t make sense. It’s not features or functions that lead to Meaningful Use, it’s ADOPTION that makes the difference. A certified EMR may be adopted – or it may not be. A non-certified EMR can be adopted, used 100%, enable a paperless worklfow, and maybe even allow for data exchange. If an EMR isn’t fully adopted, supported, and sustained, none of those achievements is possible. It makes little difference what the certification status is. What would be interesting would be to find an EMR that is actually so useable that adoption would be easy.